@@andrewnelson3681, despite being a FEMINIST herself. 🤓

This has been true of almost all humanities departments at every university in The Anglosphere, from The 1970s-forward. Social media has just brought all of this insanity into the limelight

The feminist on my former church governing body hired a woke feminist. Then in her Easter sermon criticized Christ for not choosing a female apostle. I left.

@map3384 Sad that you let that one comment (Which may have been facetious in nature)drive you out

@@pukeachu I made a correction. I meant to say hired, not fired.

the presence of a feminist in leadership was more the problem at that church

leftism: Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, “leftism” is a designation originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”. In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, crooked leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are always inventing truly inane, vacuous words in order to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”). In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit. As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their fiendish ideology throughout the school system and via folk culture. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population. According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far farsmaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia). For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have understood that, by selecting the finest examples of a particular breed of animal for propagation, it will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money, merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth, in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. This phenomenon is known as “hypergamy” in the field of sociology. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women, especially, have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male role models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12). Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genotype and one’s life-long conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. Personally, I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their births, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing tyrant! The chief personality trait of leftists (“adharma vādin”, in Sanskrit) is SELFISHNESS. Leftists find it impossible to admit that the sole reason for them preferring lawlessness (e.g. favouring illegal abortion of innocent children, homosexuality, transvestism, thievery in the guise of economic equality, feminism, et cetera) is that it appeases their own self-centred desires. As impeccably demonstrated in the twelfth chapter of this Holiest Book of All, only by adhering to genuine morality, is it possible for human society to endure, but unfortunately, leftist criminals seem to be deaf, dumb and blind to the truth of the matter, no matter how thoroughly it is explained to them. “Dharma eva hato hanti dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ । tasmād dharmo na hantavyo mā no dharmo hato’vadhīt” (Manusmṛiti 8:15) states that when righteousness (dharma) is destroyed, it destroys, but when the law (dharma) is protected, it protects. So, even though it is utterly beneficial for individuals and for society to adhere to the law, left-leaning persons are unable to grasp this truth. Apart from wretched selfishness, probably the chief characteristic of leftists, is their willingness to sympathize with groups that are considered to be VICTIMIZED by more powerful groups. However, this support for the victimized rarely extends to the infant humans who are maliciously slaughtered by their mothers, so this tendency to fight on behalf of the oppressed seems to be highly selective. Because leftists are, by definition, supportive of communism (or at least, socialism, or at the very least, socialistic public policies), they consider the working class to be oppressed by the business class, darker-skinned human beings to be oppressed by members ofEuropean or European-origin races (even though some European nations have been colonized and/or enslaved by dark-skinned folk in the past), weaker nations oppressed by wealthy/powerful nations, women oppressed by men, disabled by the abled, et cetera. “Leftism” was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters of “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles. Fear not, for the truth will surely conquer (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit)! Cf. “right-wing”. See “multiculturalism” and “socialism”.

dead giveaway

@@mdemps4255 When a woman marries, she LITERALLY joins the family of her husband, and no longer has any obligations to the family in which she was born. She takes her master’s family name, and the husband’s parents become her parents, which is why they are called “father/mother-in-law”, that is, “father/mother according-to-the-law” (the one and only law of God, or more accurately, the Universal Law, as propounded in Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”). CONVERSELY, if a woman divorces her lord, god, and master, she no longer retains any rights towards her previous family. She cannot legally (according to the inextricable moral law [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]) take anything from her ex-husband’s family, whether that be his property (including the children born of that union) or his family name. Unless her husband is guilty of adultery, she may take only whatever clothes she has on her body, and cannot return to her birth family, but is a loose woman. A noble man will, if approached by his former daughter, instruct her to promptly return to her husband and submit to his will, rather than take her back into his home. See also the Glossary entry “divorce”. Therefore, a divorced woman is to be referred to as her child’s “ex-mother” (or “former mother”). Any person who considers the birth mother of a child to STILL be that child’s mother, after divorcing herself from her master’s family, is naught but a pathetic enabler of sinful behaviour, unless, as previously stated, the husband was proven to be either an adulterer, or grossly negligent in his duties as the patriarch of his family.

It was powerful at one time but people with any awareness are on to its use now.

Non-white & especially non-white-male.

Non-white & especially non-white-male.

@@carolmcln5028 That's right!